Robertson v. Atlantic Richfield Petroleum Products Co. a Div. of Atlantic Richfield Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1988
• Citation: 537 A.2d 814,371 Pa.Super. 49
• Parties: , 2 IER Cases 1433 Michael S. ROBERTSON v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY A DIVISION OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 814

537 A.2d 814

371 Pa.Super. 49, 2 IER Cases 1433

Michael S. ROBERTSON v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD PETROLEUM PRODUCTS COMPANY A DIVISION OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 29, 1987.

Filed Dec. 21, 1987.

Reargument Denied Feb. 8, 1988.

Charles W. Kenrick, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Charles S. Morrow, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before CIRILLO, President Judge, and JOHNSON and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

CIRILLO, President Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denying appellant ARCO's post-trial motions in a breach of contract of employment action brought by its former employee, appellee Michael S. Robertson.

Robertson had been an employee of ARCO for approximately seven and one half years in its Pittsburgh offices before the transfer at issue in this case. In Pittsburgh, Robertson, in his management position there, coordinated deliveries to retail service station dealers and distributors in a seven state area. His performance reviews were consistently excellent.

In February of 1982 ARCO approached Robertson concerning a position involving product delivery at ARCO's Newark terminal, a position for which Robertson's qualifications were less than commanding, as was openly acknowledged by all concerned. Robertson was concerned that, should he fail to master this new position, one totally outside of his previous experience with the company, it might hurt his career with ARCO. ARCO subsequently offered appellee the position on a trial basis with the understanding that periodic reviews would be undertaken and that, should Robertson's performance remain unsatisfactory at the end of the trial period, he would be reassigned. Following the interview with Robertson, ARCO's eastern regional manager prepared an internal memo, the pertinent portion of which reads:

In light of the circumstances cited above [reservations about his effectiveness], I advised Mr. Robertson that he would be accepted for the Newark assignment on a trial basis and that if after a reasonable period of time (three to six months) he was unable to perform effectively, reassignment action would be taken.

Robertson began the new assignment in February of 1982 immediately after these discussions, later moving his home to the Philadelphia area. Robertson's performance was reviewed in May of 1982, September of 1982, and April of 1983. At each of these junctures ARCO recognized appellee's obvious efforts to improve his performance, noted areas which still needed improvement, and decided to extend the trial period. In April of 1983, ARCO was informed that the eastern portion of the company was being sold, and there followed a subsequent reduction in the work force. In June of 1983 Robertson was terminated because of his unsatisfactory performance. ARCO attempted to find another position for him but because other employees being displaced as a result of the sale had better performance records, they were preferred for any available openings. Robertson was subsequently sporadically employed with salaries and prospective salaries (Robertson was still interviewing at the time of trial) of approximately $18,000, $10,000 less than he had been making at ARCO.

In February of 1984 Robertson filed suit alleging, inter alia, breach of employment contract. Following a jury verdict for Robertson and denial of ARCO's timely post-trial motions, ARCO filed the instant appeal with this court.

Appellant presents three issues for our consideration, alleging reversible error as to each: (1) rulings of the trial court adverse to the defendant as to the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's claim; (2) denial of a new trial despite the existence of prejudicial error; and (3) refusal of remittitur. At the outset we will address the first contention since, unless the trial court is upheld in the actions complained of in this argument, there will be no need to reach the second and third issues.

The threshold question for this court is whether Robertson's employment was at-will at the time of his discharge. We will not review terminations of at-will employment relationships. Veno v. Meredith, 357 Pa.Super. 85, 97, 515 A.2d 571, 577 (1986). The verdict in the trial court was for Robertson, indicating that the jury found that his relationship with ARCO at the time of his discharge was not employment at-will.

This court's recent decisions in this area of the law contain extensive discussion of Pennsylvania's at-will doctrine and existing exceptions and are cited repeatedly by both parties. These cases provide guidance for this court in the instant matter but no single case controls the outcome here.

The parties to this appeal do not disagree on what must be shown in order to rebut the presumption of at-will employment, a long-standing doctrine in Pennsylvania law. Appellant had the benefit of this presumption and the the burden of persuasion to rebut it was with appellee Robertson.

All employment is considered to be at-will absent: (1) sufficient additional consideration; (2) an agreement for a definite duration; (3) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged only for just cause; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception. The parties concede that (3) and (4) are not applicable in this case, and question only the court's resolution of (1) and (2).

I. Argument I: LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

Following the rendering by the jury of a verdict for the plaintiff, ARCO moved, inter alia, for arrest of judgment or, in the alternative, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. These motions were denied by the trial court in addition to the remaining post-trial relief requested by appellant which we will address in Sections II & III, infra.

A motion in arrest of judgment seeks to overturn the verdict because of a defect apparent on the record, while judgment n.o.v. is properly granted where no two reasonable persons could disagree that the verdict was improper. Erkens v. Tredennick, 353 Pa.Super. 236, 240, 509 A.2d 424, 426 (1986); Geyer v. Steinbronn, 351 Pa.Super. 536, 549, 506 A.2d 901, 908 (1986). There is no defect apparent on the record in the instant matter.

Judgment n.o.v. is an extreme remedy properly entered by the trial court only in a clear case where, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, no two reasonable minds could fail to agree that the verdict was improper. Scarborough by Scarborough v. Lewis, 359 Pa.Super. 57, 61-62, 518 A.2d 563, 565 (1986); Bryant v. Girard Bank, 358 Pa.Super. 335, 339, 517 A.2d 968, 971 (1986). Considering only the evidence which supports the verdict, the court must give the verdict winner the benefit of all doubt and of every fact and inference deducible from the evidence. Gonzalez v. United States Steel Corp., 484 Pa. 277, 287, 398 A.2d 1378, 1383 (1979); Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment Auth., 489 Pa. 344, 351, 414 A.2d 100, 103 (1980).

The existence of a contract, the terms thereof, and the sufficiency of those terms to rebut the at-will presumption were within the province of the jury in the first instance, their finding reviewable by the trial court thereafter. In interpreting a contract to ascertain the intention of the parties the court may consider the totality of the surrounding circumstances, the situation of the parties, the objects they apparently had in mind, and the nature and subject matter of the agreement. Lucacher v. Kerson, 158 Pa.Super. 437, 440, 45 A.2d 245, 247 (1946).

A review of the record indicates evidence sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that a contract of employment was made on or about February 9, 1982, whereby Robertson agreed to undertake the Newark position in exchange for a promise of reassignment if his job performance there proved unsatisfactory at the end of the specified duration. Robertson understandably did not wish to jeopardize his career with ARCO by failing in an attempt to master a new assignment, one for which both parties recognized he was not fully qualified. Therefore, the parties agreed to a trial period which was originally contemplated to last between three and six months, was later extended by the company, and ultimately lasted approximately fifteen months. At the end of this trial period, when Robertson's performance had still not reached the level desired by the company, Robertson was, by the terms of the contract, entitled to reassignment for a reasonable period of time, since the contract did not specify a duration of the reassignment. Only after the passage of this reasonable period of time would Robertson have reverted to at-will status.

Further, the evidence supports a reasonable inference that, by leaving a position where his performance enhanced his career prospects and moving to the Philadelphia area, Robertson provided sufficient additional consideration to rebut the at-will presumption. As to appellant's argument that the discharge was for just cause, specifically for unsatisfactory performance in the Newark position, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that the contract prevented discharge for this reason and provided that reassignment was the proper remedy for this particular unsatisfactory performance. In fact, testimony by appellant's personnel showed that the company attempted to reassign Robertson, citing company-wide cutbacks due to a reorganization as the reason they were unable to find Robertson a new position. It is a reasonable inference that ARCO's attempt to reassign Robertson acknowledged its obligation to do so.

There was evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that Robertson had proven by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a contract of employment for the definite term of a trial period supported by sufficient additional consideration, thereby rebutting the at-will presumption and, further, that termination of Robertson's employment was not for just cause but...